Mid-Midterm Elections

Blowing a Kiss To HoffmanLast night there was a hodgepodge of elections.  None had national significance, but many are symbolically important.  Unfortunately in the maelstrom of hype known as 24 hour cable news, that means that everyone pretends that the Democratic losses in the governor races for Virginia and New Jersey means that Obama has problems nationally or that conservatives have been dealt a serious setback because Doug Hoffman wasn't elected to a one year stint in the House of Representatives.  The real lesson, as always, is that politics are local, whether in New Jersey where John Corzine had a reputation for mismanagement and corruption that sunk him even though 57% of voters approved of Obama or in NY-23 where Bill Owens won a seat held by Republicans since the 19th century after national conservatives, like Sarah Palin, rallied support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.

In 2008 when Barack Obama was on the ballot and Republicans lost pretty much everywhere, these races would have gone differently.  It is easy to see signs of Obama's position crumbling because Republicans actually won a race or three, but these sorts of elections are always sparsely participated in and whoever turns out the base usually wins.  Uninspiring Democratic candidates and the rapidly anti-Obama tea-party thing meant Republicans voted yesterday (in Virginia the electorate yesterday voted for McCain 51-43%, in an election Obama won by over 7%) .  Midterm elections usually go poorly for the President's party (see: 1994 and 2006) and this is a Mid-Midterm Election.  After two huge national wins for the Democrats (2006 and 2008), the Democrats are way ahead (60-40 in Senate, 258-177 House and 28-22 Governors after yesterday) it is possible that the 2010 elections will change that but it will take some serious doing.  The Republicans might catch up in Governors in 2010, because incumbents in a bad economy are going to have a hard time of it.  In Congress, though, the Republicans aren't going to take control of anything in 2010 by kicking out moderates like Dede Scozzafava in favor of hardliners like Doug Hoffman.

Newt Gringrich, the man behind the last big Conservative midterm sweep, advocated for Republicans to stay behind Scozzafava for that reason.  "The Big Tent" is going to be empty if there is a strict litmus test for every Republican.  Building a coalition of diverse opinions that can work effectively is tough; the Democrats are far more heterogeneous (there are many pro-life, pro-gun or pro-taxcut Democrats, but not many pro-choice, pro-gun-control or pro-tax Republicans), but they are also more fractious than the usually unified Republicans.  So either you are the party that gets to be in charge, but fights for votes on everything or your party can meaninglessly vote as one to not support the legislation that passes without you anyway.

As is, the Republicans need to rebrand themselves like Worldcom did.  Their name is less popular than their politics.  One option is to go the Meghan McCain route, though hopefully with less boobs and more brains, and be the party of principled moderates.  For all of the talk about how America is a center-right country, the Republicans seem to like to run hard right candidates.  There is a lot of hay to be made as the party of principled dissent and reason, standing for Americans who think Obama's politics are moving too fast.  The other option is to follow Sarah Palin into conservative purity- maybe change the name like Doug Hoffman did.  Conservative is still the most popular self-identified ideology after all, you could probably win a lot of primaries by tilting right.  How many general elections would you win though?  I know I'd prefer a viable, reasonable Republican party; good opposition would make for better Democrats too.  The real liberals, meanwhile, are hoping conservatives get their wish, because then the Democrats will be in charge for years to come.